I think the difference is the model - here we have a two tier model. Most other brokers you just pay the (of course rip off) fees and then get access to whatever they offer. Less of a concern of them switching access to certain things on and off based on tiers.
To clarify - I’m not opposed to FT making money, and as I said this approach will likely be fine for any new users coming on board and makes business sense.
It’s more for existing users. Whether paywalling things previously accessible is an ‘incentive’ to move is up for debate.
I just want to say that this is perhaps the first time I’m disappointed of FT. I came to this post excited to see what were the new ETFs added, just to learn that some of my favourite existing ETFs, including EQQQ, will be paywalled.
This sounds like another case of “I want the company to make money, but not out of me/unless it impacts me”. You fully accept that traditional brokers are a rip-off and your concern is based purely on ifs and maybes. To me, this trepidation is ridiculous. If something happens, it happens. Deal with it if and when it happens. As someone else said, the opposite may well happen.
We’ve seen a couple of really good points raised here about EQQQ vs. the iShares alternative that we’ve added this week and we think that it’s right to make a change to the rule that we outlined above.
Going forward the Free plan will include any available ETFs managed by:
Plus will include ETFs from any other providers that are available (in addition to all the ETFs available on Free).
We’ll update all of the other posts to reflect this slight change. It’s important that everyone has an option to get exposure to a popular index like the NASDAQ 100 through a product with the attributes that you want.
In reality they aren’t necessarily rip off fees. That’s a complex topic though. HL for example seems to have added more fee structures to try and make it more affordable for smaller investors. Freetrade seems to be going for a different approach of simply making it free for many investors and a flat fee for other investors.
And look, I say this as someone who has stocks which are moving under plus and doesn’t feel that plus is quite the right thing for my needs yet. It’s to expensive for what I need right now.
I don’t think for example taking it as your paying £10/m to access one x stock. That’s not really the point. You’re paying £10/m to access the whole service, that some of your stocks are ‘free’ is incidental.
Personally I think £10/m is and will be great value for almost everyone. Especially when they add some of the more administrative features and data features to the overall platform.
It’s great as well that we share our thoughts regardless. That’s what #ideas is for in the first place isn’t it
Well that’s not entirely accurate is it because if that was the case they would never have wanted to move stocks that were in the free and readily attainable universe already to behind their paywall structure.
Of course, ETFs that have been requested over and over being behind a paywall is disappointing but understandable. For anything new, I could understand that. For me it’s more the moving of ETFs that were once free behind a paywall. That is much more dubious to me. What I would have found perfectly fine would be “Everything that is now free tier will remain free but going forward any new non iShares, Vanguard and Invesco ETFs will be added only to plus”. That is much more palpable and sends a much better message. I think the 28 ETFs are worth leaving in free tier so as not to dampen the ethos.
Removing ETFs to plus that were once free means no matter what is said I can never truly believe “iShares, Invesco, Vanguard will remain in free tier”. It rings hollow because I know removing ETFs from free tier is something Freetrade are willing to do now as they have form now.
News just keeps getting worse - now Freetrade are moving a bunch of ETFs to Plus too. In my case, this affects 4 ETFs that I own, which I will now no longer be able to add too - only hold of sell. More annoying is that they dress this limitation up like it is a fab new feature!
As has been discussed in a number of other posts, the pricing for Plus is not attractive, and FT don’t seem to be considering an option to allow ‘free’ users the option to buy Plus stocks/ETFs, even at an additional charge. For me, this is another nail in the coffin for my experience with FT and reinforces my decision to use another provider as my main platform.
I get the need to introduce paid options in order to generate revenue in the long run, but FT lacks a number of basic features that means ‘Plus’ does not warrant the cost.
Sorry FT, but I reluctantly feel our love affair is coming to an end.
A lot of people on here seem to share your opinion.
Personally I don’t (yes I am an investor), as £10 is the cost of lunch and cheaper than placing one trade with legacy brokers. But it would be nice if the cost was lowered until the full suite of features were available.
Would be interesting to see what the numbers say. Are people signing up/showing interest or not…
I think the narrative is wrong here. Premium shouldn’t be for market access, but for features. Freetrade is great as it opens up the markets to everyone; putting that behind a paywall is not a good move.
Plus should be for stop loss orders and other automation features. Putting ETFs and other equities behind a paywall isn’t a good move.